The Hugos were given out last weekend. Sci-Fi Storm has the list of 2011 Hugo Award winners.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Steve Jobs’s Best Quotes
The WSJ lists some of Steve Jobs’s Best Quotes . "Steve Jobs has stepped down as CEO of Apple, the company he founded and turned into the largest technology company in the world. Although his tenure as CEO will be remembered for ushering in fundamental changes in the way people interact with technology, he has also been known for his salesmanship, his ability to turn a phrase – and a knack for taking complicated ideas and making them easy to understand. Below, a compendium of some of the best Steve Jobs quotes."
What a Black Hole Eating a Star Looks Like
The title is misleading, this is most certainly a simulation, still cool.
Russian Cargo Shipment to the International Space Station Has Crashed
io9 reports, A Russian cargo shipment to the International Space Station has crashed.
"An uncrewed Russian cargo shipment to the International Space Station crashed into Siberia just minutes after blastoff this morning. The Russian space agency is reporting that the Progress M-12M cargo ship (pictured above) failed to detach from its launch vehicle at the correct stage of the launch, and was subsequently unable to enter the correct orbit.
While the Progress freighter was carrying 3 tons of cargo, Russian and US officials have both reported that the current crew of the ISS should have more than enough supplies on board to weather the effects of the lost shipment. Whether ISS crew members need to begin returning home will depend on how long Soyuz operations are put on hold."
"An uncrewed Russian cargo shipment to the International Space Station crashed into Siberia just minutes after blastoff this morning. The Russian space agency is reporting that the Progress M-12M cargo ship (pictured above) failed to detach from its launch vehicle at the correct stage of the launch, and was subsequently unable to enter the correct orbit.
While the Progress freighter was carrying 3 tons of cargo, Russian and US officials have both reported that the current crew of the ISS should have more than enough supplies on board to weather the effects of the lost shipment. Whether ISS crew members need to begin returning home will depend on how long Soyuz operations are put on hold."
Social Security Is Not the Problem
Jared Bernstein explains Social Security Is Not the Problem "Social Security has a funding shortfall too—about 0.8% of GDP over the 75-year horizon. That’s just about equal to the revenue from the expiration of the high-end Bush tax cuts, and less than half from all the Bush cuts. So please don’t tell me we can’t afford this guaranteed pension that provides more than half of their income to more than half of the elderly."
He has more, Social Security: Principles, Facts, and Fixes
He has more, Social Security: Principles, Facts, and Fixes
What could Obama have done?
On Sunday the New York Times ran a piece If I Were President.... "Then I asked a range of Americans who don’t labor in politics or the media what they’d do if they were president." I thought it was particularly lame.
Jonathan Chait says, "If you looking for an anthropologically perfect sample of the cult of the presidency, check out the feature of the Sunday New York Times, entitled "If I Were President." The feature asks a series of leading lights to outline their vision for the country. But the entire concept makes no distinction between the notion of "if I were president" and "if I were king." If you were the president, of course, you would need a course of action that could be accomplished either through an executive order or that could be passed through both the House and Senate. The proposals generally make no allowance whatsoever for Congress."
Ezra Klein asked, What could Obama have done? "I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which the past few years could have gone differently. I’ve even come up with a few. But none of them lead to dramatically better outcomes today."
"Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done. But the administration hasn’t able to get unemployment under control — perhaps it couldn’t have gotten unemployment under control — and so all of that has not been nearly enough."
Matthew Yglesias came up with Imagining Better Yesterdays. "For example, back on ARRA, would it have been impossible to negotiate a deal that featured a smaller headline stimulus number but contained a payroll tax cut “trigger” mechanism if unemployment shot over 8 percent? Maybe it would have been, but it’s not obviously an objectionable idea from the point of view of the pivotal stakeholders and it just wasn’t tried. Similarly, timely nominations for Federal Reserve Board vacancies would have made a difference. The administration could have moved swiftly to nominate someone to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency who was committed to using the powers of that office to move the economy...The original sin here was not thinking seriously enough about the question 'what will we wish we’d done if 30 months from now the BEA turns out to have been underestimating the recession?'"
Klein followed up, What Obama could have done, Part II. "So you could make the argument that Matt’s policy would have been marginally better or marginally worse — I’d prefer it, actually -- but it’s hard to make the argument that it would have been dramatically different." Even on housing he can't come up with much Obama could have done. Now what Congress could have done is another story.
Brad DeLong wrote, "I think Ezra is simply wrong. There were a large number of things that Obama could have done--there are even things he could do now, if he wanted to." He lists 10 things:
Jonathan Chait says, "If you looking for an anthropologically perfect sample of the cult of the presidency, check out the feature of the Sunday New York Times, entitled "If I Were President." The feature asks a series of leading lights to outline their vision for the country. But the entire concept makes no distinction between the notion of "if I were president" and "if I were king." If you were the president, of course, you would need a course of action that could be accomplished either through an executive order or that could be passed through both the House and Senate. The proposals generally make no allowance whatsoever for Congress."
Ezra Klein asked, What could Obama have done? "I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about ways in which the past few years could have gone differently. I’ve even come up with a few. But none of them lead to dramatically better outcomes today."
"Indeed, if you had taken me aside in 2008 and sketched out the first three years of Obama’s presidency, I would have thought you were being overoptimistic: an $800 billion stimulus package — recall that people were only talking in the $200-$300 billion range back then — followed by near-universal health-care reform, followed by financial regulation, followed by another stimulus (in the 2010 tax deal), followed by the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” followed by the killing of Osama bin Laden and the apparent ousting of Moammar Gaddafi? There was no way. And yet all that did get done. But the administration hasn’t able to get unemployment under control — perhaps it couldn’t have gotten unemployment under control — and so all of that has not been nearly enough."
Matthew Yglesias came up with Imagining Better Yesterdays. "For example, back on ARRA, would it have been impossible to negotiate a deal that featured a smaller headline stimulus number but contained a payroll tax cut “trigger” mechanism if unemployment shot over 8 percent? Maybe it would have been, but it’s not obviously an objectionable idea from the point of view of the pivotal stakeholders and it just wasn’t tried. Similarly, timely nominations for Federal Reserve Board vacancies would have made a difference. The administration could have moved swiftly to nominate someone to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency who was committed to using the powers of that office to move the economy...The original sin here was not thinking seriously enough about the question 'what will we wish we’d done if 30 months from now the BEA turns out to have been underestimating the recession?'"
Klein followed up, What Obama could have done, Part II. "So you could make the argument that Matt’s policy would have been marginally better or marginally worse — I’d prefer it, actually -- but it’s hard to make the argument that it would have been dramatically different." Even on housing he can't come up with much Obama could have done. Now what Congress could have done is another story.
Brad DeLong wrote, "I think Ezra is simply wrong. There were a large number of things that Obama could have done--there are even things he could do now, if he wanted to." He lists 10 things:
- Use Reconciliation to get a second stimulus through Congress in the fall of 2009.
- Expand the PPIP to do $3 trillion of quantitative easing through the Treasury Department.
- Have a real HAMP to refinance mortgages.
- Use Fannie and Freddie to (temporarily) nationalize mortgage finance, refinance mortgages, and rebalance the housing market.
- Announce that a weaker dollar is in America's interest.
- Nominate a Fed Chair who takes the Fed's dual mandate seriously and pursues policies to stabilize the growth of nominal GDP.
- Appoint Fed governors who take the Fed's dual mandate seriously and support policies to stabilize the growth of nominal GDP.
- Take equity in the banks in January-March of 2009 and keep them from lobbying against financial reform.
- Use Reconciliation to pass an infrastructure bank.
- Use TARP money as a mezzanine tranche to fund large-scale additional aid to states and localities to reduce their fiscal contractions.
Kevin Drum followed that with Obama's Missed Chance. "My own guess is that #6 and #7, though desirable, probably wouldn't have made too much difference. And #1 and #9 both would have required reconciliation instructions to be written by April 2009. That was only a couple of months after the stimulus bill had passed, and at the time the House and Senate were willing to include reconciliation instructions in the budget resolution only for healthcare and education funding. Perhaps Obama should have pushed harder for open-ended instructions, but at the time the administration and Congress both thought the 2009 stimulus would be enough. Obviously that was a mistake, but broadly speaking, that was the mistake, not all the subsequent details that resulted from that original misjudgment. Still, even if my understanding of the reconciliation process is right — and I'll accept correction from anyone who's an expert — that leaves six strong ideas plus two more that would have been worthwhile even if their effect would have been modest. Not bad."
My own answer? Obama could have used the bully pulpit to to explain and support the progressive argument to the American people and to prevent virtually every policy from moving so far to the right. That might have resulted in a bigger stimulus, health care reform with a public option (though not a single payer system), Peter Diamond on the federal reserve board, Elizabeth Warren heading the CFPB, financial reform with some real teeth, and maybe less time devoted to such stupidity as deficit reduction in a recession. I'm not saying progressives would have gotten everything they wanted, but I do think that conservatives dominated the discourse, even while in the minority, and were much more effective in getting what they wanted. If Obama was making a stronger case instead of preemptively conceding, I think things could have been very different. Maybe the nation would have spent less time debating health care, birth certificates, and debt limits and maybe we could be talking about solutions to climate change that involved jobs modernizing our energy infrastructure.
Update: Klein sums up some responses in What could Obama have done, Part III
Obama's Book Club
The Daily Beast wrote Obama's Book Club. "The Reader-in-Chief is heading for the beach. Here's every book he's read since the last campaign."
It may all be chart junk, but I kinda like it.
It may all be chart junk, but I kinda like it.
Across The Board Spending Cuts Reduce Spending Across The Board
Matthew Yglesias wrote Across The Board Spending Cuts Reduce Spending Across The Board, Even On Newsworthy Programs.
After this tweet, "Currently waiting from a blog post by @mattyglesias or @ezraklein accusing the GOP of trying to gut funding for earthquake monitoring."
"I really don’t understand how people can be so blinkered as to think that it’s somehow unfair to point out that a political movement that supports across the board cuts in federal spending does, in fact, want to cut spending on each and every program. That includes programs that are currently newsworthy. "
In business, I always thought across the board cuts were lazy. If you need to cut something small like 5%, maybe they're fine. But if you need to cut something substantial, or if this is the third 5% cut you've done, then you're being lazy. It's demoralizing and difficult (and often impossible) to "do more with less". Instead, companies should re-examine their strategies to account for the lower budget. They should commit to eliminating something and concentrate on other things that are working or have promise. Significant revenue shortfalls mean your strategy isn't working, fix it.
I think the same thing applies to governments. Find what you're willing to stop doing and cut it. And if you can't, find ways to raise revenues. In Yglesias' example maybe earthquake monitoring does have some slack it can eliminate, but maybe the CDC is already dangerously underfunded.
Here's a possible example that I hadn't heard of but unlikely allies Paul Krugman and Robert J. Samuelson both like, Don’t kill America’s databook.
After this tweet, "Currently waiting from a blog post by @mattyglesias or @ezraklein accusing the GOP of trying to gut funding for earthquake monitoring."
"I really don’t understand how people can be so blinkered as to think that it’s somehow unfair to point out that a political movement that supports across the board cuts in federal spending does, in fact, want to cut spending on each and every program. That includes programs that are currently newsworthy. "
In business, I always thought across the board cuts were lazy. If you need to cut something small like 5%, maybe they're fine. But if you need to cut something substantial, or if this is the third 5% cut you've done, then you're being lazy. It's demoralizing and difficult (and often impossible) to "do more with less". Instead, companies should re-examine their strategies to account for the lower budget. They should commit to eliminating something and concentrate on other things that are working or have promise. Significant revenue shortfalls mean your strategy isn't working, fix it.
I think the same thing applies to governments. Find what you're willing to stop doing and cut it. And if you can't, find ways to raise revenues. In Yglesias' example maybe earthquake monitoring does have some slack it can eliminate, but maybe the CDC is already dangerously underfunded.
Here's a possible example that I hadn't heard of but unlikely allies Paul Krugman and Robert J. Samuelson both like, Don’t kill America’s databook.
Is Welfare Reform Working?
Ezra Klein addresses a question I was just asking the other day, Is welfare reform working?. "Fifteen years ago today, President Bill Clinton signed welfare reform -- also known as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program -- into law. The obvious post to write today is, “is it working?” But that raises the question: what do we mean by “working”?"
It's certainly reduced the rolls and costs, but it's also covering a lot fewer people.
It's certainly reduced the rolls and costs, but it's also covering a lot fewer people.
Paradise Lost
The Guardian Eyewitness posted Paradise lost "The remains of Sir Richard Branson's Caribbean home on Necker Island. It burned down after being struck by lightning."
They pointed out Branson's island on the Caribbean cruise I took. I think this is it:
They pointed out Branson's island on the Caribbean cruise I took. I think this is it:
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Movie Reviews
Project Nim - a documentary about a chimpanzee raised with a human family as a science experiment. Nim learned to sign and lived a pretty good life until the experiment ended. Then he went to a lab doing animal drug testing. This was the first time he was with other apes but his human handlers realized he was different and learned some signs from Nim! Then there were trials and a rescue farm that was a debatable rescue. Interesting story, well told, and crazy 70s science.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - was pretty respectful of the original films. It delivered classic lines in new ways much as the latest Star Trek film did. But wow, did it fail on characterization. Andy Serkis as CGI Caesar and John Lithgow as an Alzheimer's addled father were the only good performances. Franco was less believable as a biologist than Portman was as an astrophysicist in Thor. Freida Pinto was gorgeous but empty. And as usual, the problem was with the script. There are some clever ideas here, but the people in this film are really stupid. See Project Nim instead. It's surprising how similar the two films are. An ape, raised from birth in a human house, by remarkably naive scientists, learns sign language, gets violent as he gets older, and is removed to an abusive caged environment, his first time with other apes. The only difference is one ends with a big battle on the Golden Gate bridge. The original is perhaps my favorite Sci-Fi film of all time, and I hated the Tim Burton remake, so I was going into this with low expectations. But characters really do help a film.
Buried - James Franco was good in last years 127 Hours about a man trapped for almost a week, alone, in a ravine. Buried was the other film from last year focusing on one trapped man. Ryan Reynolds is a contractor in Iraq who wakes up buried alive in a coffin. The whole film takes place in the coffin. That could be a very limited film but he does have a cell phone. At the time I heard critics saying this was better than 127 Hours but I don't think so. He's obviously legitimately panicked on the phone but he's still a little too much of an asshole. I blame the script more than the actor. It takes a few too many easy plot turns.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 - I haven't read the books but I have seen all the films. I'm still surprised that part 1 hadn't be re-released in theaters or even on cable. It would have helped to refresh some things, particularly as this film has no summary of the first film (for no acceptable reason). It worked, there were big battles, the kids grew up. I still don't understand some motivations or plot points. It seems destroy a piece of Voldemort's has no effect on him other than making him yell for a moment. Shouldn't he get weaker? And he just stands on a hill for a long time while Harry goes through three different missions. Then it's get Harry, then wait for him and then go get him. I don't know why so many wizards were following evil Voldemort. At least in Lord of the Rings Saruman grew the Orcs. It was fine, but felt more like going through the scripted motions rather than an immediate danger (though I did wonder if Harry would live at a few points).
Captain America: The First Avenger - A pretty good superhero movie, set in the 1940s. The first half is the origin story and that works very well, particularly at making it clear that it's not the powers but the person that makes the hero. Chris Evans makes a good Cap (much better than his human torch) but the supporting cast, including Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving really help. The second half a war montage leading up to the fight with the big villain that ends Caps role in the war. If you're a comic book fan, they did a great job with making small changes but keeping the important elements there and including lots of easter eggs (the cover of Captain America #1 had him punching Hitler, the various costumes over the years, Bucky, the Howling Commandoes, even the Original Human Torch). It got the 40s set design, costumes and tone right. I think comic fans would like this more than Iron Man (I did) though non-fans would like Iron Man more (it's funnier).
Cowboys & Aliens - It had all the elements it wanted but it didn't come together. Daniel Craig was doing his Clint thing but he came off as aloof rather than cool. I had heard this was Harrison Ford's best role in a while, but he played the same cranky old guy he's played in everything in the last decade. Olivia Wilde was ironically more human than either of them but remained too mysterious to have much of an arc. Scenes went on too long so the two hours felt bloated. It did better on plot than I expected but I still got caught up in the details of the final battle. Why did the aliens give up on the range weapons (or even handheld ones) in favor of hand-to-hand combat. Would people in a castle stop shooting arrows to go out and fight invaders hand-to-hand?
Beginners - After Ewan McGregor's mother dies his 75 year-old father, Christopher Plummer, tells him he's gay. He also finds out he has terminal cancer. The film alternates between Plummer's remaining years and shortly after his death. Plummer comes out and begins an affair with a much younger Goran Visnjic, though he still manages to keep secrets. McGregor in cleaning up his father's affairs meets foreign actress Mélanie Laurent who might be his first serious relationship. As the title suggests, this film is about people starting over. I left thinking I just shared some intimate moments with these characters but still don't know who they are. I'm sure that was deliberate and a commentary on relationships. It's not a great film but it manages to get the comedy/drama balance right. It's a fine summer anti-blockbuster.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. - The critics' reviews I first heard were mixed. Most said the main story between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore was unfocused and the secondary story between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone was really good. Then a number of friends told me they saw this and really liked it. I mostly side with the critics. Gosling and Stone were very good (I've liked virtually all of their films). They felt like real people and shared some intimate moments and were very funny. Oddly it was Steve Carell that I thought was completely wrong in this film. The film opens with Moore saying she wants a divorce. Carell completely shuts down, not communicating at all. Instead he throws himself out of a moving car, moves out and hangs out in the local pickup bar acting like a pathetic loser. That's fine for a movie but I never bought the character. It's the same awkward out-of-place character he always plays (e.g., 40 Year-Old Virgin, Dinner With Schmucks, Evan Almighty) but without the charm (even worse than in Date Night). I don't see what Moore ever saw in him. This film is more drama than comedy and in that situation his awkward schtick really didn't fit for me. It was fine in Get Smart but not here.
The Trip - played at IFFBoston this year and while the reviews were good, it conflicted with other things and I skipped it. I'm glad I did. Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play what I assume are fictionalized versions of themselves on a week long tour of Britain's finest (country) restaurants. So it's a road film and mostly about the two of them talking. That's fine, but I didn't find them funny. Rob does imitations and Steve thinks his are better. That's about all I know about Rob. Also Steve is a womanizer. We don't see him actually doing anything that would effectively seduce someone, but we see him meet them and see them leave in the morning. And Steve complains about things. There were a few scenes I smiled through (the first tasting dinner) but I only laughed out loud twice. If you've seen a comedy (or even a drama) with me, you know that's not good. I know others that really liked it, but I found it was all smug setup without punchlines.
The Help - I haven't read the book but understand the movie is a faithful adaptation. It must be a good book because I enjoyed the film a lot. It's long, 146 minutes, but it went by quickly. This is the story of African American maids in Mississippi in the 60s. Even though they are raising the children of the households they're working in, they are treated like second class citizens. They cook the food but can't use the same bathroom or even door. Emma Stone is Skeeter a young forward thinking journalist that decides to tell their story in a new book. The performances are all good, particularly Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer but also Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain. I've read a number of complaints from the African American community about the film (and book). The first is that it sugar coats the racism, things were much worse in real life. I agree a bit and thought it wrapped things up too neatly in the end, but it's still pretty effective in making it clear this was completely unfair to the maids and the white women were completely in the wrong. The other complaint is that the author was white woman and the community doesn't need her to tell their story. I'm less sympathetic to this. She grew up in this world and if someone else wants to tell the story, let them. Similarly there are complaints that the story involves a white woman, Skeeter, rescuing the black women, which is a stereotypical cliche. Again, I say get over it, it's fiction. And it's good fiction. In fact, I think it's the best drama of the year so far.
Jaws - I've seen Jaws several times, but this summer I saw it in a theater on a big screen I think for the first time. It's great. The story is great, the (lack of the) shark is scary, the characters are fully realized, the performances are great (particularly Robert Shaw), and the music fun. It's the best film I saw this summer and probably the second best film I saw this year (I watched Inception again in April).
The Tourist - This got horrible reviews last year and I waited until it was on cable. Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie vehicle set in Venice (and like The Town it had some great helicopter shots). I had thought it was a spy film but it's more like a crime thriller-romance with a Hitchcockian mistaken identity. Maybe it was trying to be To Catch a Thief but it failed. While there were some good lines, there was too little dialog. I just didn't buy the romance between the two of them. I also saw the ending coming from a mile away.
How to Steal a Million - is an Audrey Hepburn film I hadn't heard of. Her father, Hugh Griffith is an art forger. He puts a copy of a statue in a museum and Hepburn and Peter O'Toole must steal it back before it's found out. It's just a fun little caper. This might have been the film The Tourist was trying to be. Rent this instead.
George Washington Slept Here - is a Jack Benny comedy similar to Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, though made 6 years prior and based on a play. Benny's wife, Ann Sheridan gets them evicted from their New York apartment because of her dog. She buys a country home where Washington is said to have slept. The problem is it's completely dilapidated and she did it without city boy Benny's knowledge. Bandings is better, but this was fun.
Departures - The 2009 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar winner from Japan. A somewhat unsuccessful violinist returns home and takes a job as a mortician. This is apparently not a respected position in Japan and his wife has issues with it. Nice small town drama as people realize what's important and what's not.
Good Neighbors - is a pretty fun dark comedic crime thriller. It follows three neighbors in an apartment building in a Montreal neighborhood. Louise is the single waitress on her way to becoming a crazy cat lady. Spencer is her friend recently confined to a wheelchair who doesn't leave his apartment. Victor is the new neighbor who talks too much and is annoying friendly. And there's a serial killer in the area. It's got that indie comedy vibe and maybe it tries to hard, but it worked for me.
Skidoo - I have a TiVo wishlist setup for Otto Preminger films. This one popped up from 1968, starring Jackie Gleason and Groucho Marx! Also in the cast were Frank Gorshin, Burgess Meredith, and Cesar Romero. A Batman reunion! Add in Frankie Avalon, Mickey Rooney and Carol Channing and how could I not watch it? Well it's not very good. IMDb says "Ex-gangster Tony Banks is called out of retirement by mob kingpin God to carry out a hit on fellow mobster "Blue Chips" Packard". But that doesn't do it justice. Instead, this is a 60s hippie farce and everyone mentioned above trips on LSD. But, this film has the best credits of all time, sung by Nilsson:
Rise of the Planet of the Apes - was pretty respectful of the original films. It delivered classic lines in new ways much as the latest Star Trek film did. But wow, did it fail on characterization. Andy Serkis as CGI Caesar and John Lithgow as an Alzheimer's addled father were the only good performances. Franco was less believable as a biologist than Portman was as an astrophysicist in Thor. Freida Pinto was gorgeous but empty. And as usual, the problem was with the script. There are some clever ideas here, but the people in this film are really stupid. See Project Nim instead. It's surprising how similar the two films are. An ape, raised from birth in a human house, by remarkably naive scientists, learns sign language, gets violent as he gets older, and is removed to an abusive caged environment, his first time with other apes. The only difference is one ends with a big battle on the Golden Gate bridge. The original is perhaps my favorite Sci-Fi film of all time, and I hated the Tim Burton remake, so I was going into this with low expectations. But characters really do help a film.
Buried - James Franco was good in last years 127 Hours about a man trapped for almost a week, alone, in a ravine. Buried was the other film from last year focusing on one trapped man. Ryan Reynolds is a contractor in Iraq who wakes up buried alive in a coffin. The whole film takes place in the coffin. That could be a very limited film but he does have a cell phone. At the time I heard critics saying this was better than 127 Hours but I don't think so. He's obviously legitimately panicked on the phone but he's still a little too much of an asshole. I blame the script more than the actor. It takes a few too many easy plot turns.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows 2 - I haven't read the books but I have seen all the films. I'm still surprised that part 1 hadn't be re-released in theaters or even on cable. It would have helped to refresh some things, particularly as this film has no summary of the first film (for no acceptable reason). It worked, there were big battles, the kids grew up. I still don't understand some motivations or plot points. It seems destroy a piece of Voldemort's has no effect on him other than making him yell for a moment. Shouldn't he get weaker? And he just stands on a hill for a long time while Harry goes through three different missions. Then it's get Harry, then wait for him and then go get him. I don't know why so many wizards were following evil Voldemort. At least in Lord of the Rings Saruman grew the Orcs. It was fine, but felt more like going through the scripted motions rather than an immediate danger (though I did wonder if Harry would live at a few points).
Captain America: The First Avenger - A pretty good superhero movie, set in the 1940s. The first half is the origin story and that works very well, particularly at making it clear that it's not the powers but the person that makes the hero. Chris Evans makes a good Cap (much better than his human torch) but the supporting cast, including Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, and Hugo Weaving really help. The second half a war montage leading up to the fight with the big villain that ends Caps role in the war. If you're a comic book fan, they did a great job with making small changes but keeping the important elements there and including lots of easter eggs (the cover of Captain America #1 had him punching Hitler, the various costumes over the years, Bucky, the Howling Commandoes, even the Original Human Torch). It got the 40s set design, costumes and tone right. I think comic fans would like this more than Iron Man (I did) though non-fans would like Iron Man more (it's funnier).
Cowboys & Aliens - It had all the elements it wanted but it didn't come together. Daniel Craig was doing his Clint thing but he came off as aloof rather than cool. I had heard this was Harrison Ford's best role in a while, but he played the same cranky old guy he's played in everything in the last decade. Olivia Wilde was ironically more human than either of them but remained too mysterious to have much of an arc. Scenes went on too long so the two hours felt bloated. It did better on plot than I expected but I still got caught up in the details of the final battle. Why did the aliens give up on the range weapons (or even handheld ones) in favor of hand-to-hand combat. Would people in a castle stop shooting arrows to go out and fight invaders hand-to-hand?
Beginners - After Ewan McGregor's mother dies his 75 year-old father, Christopher Plummer, tells him he's gay. He also finds out he has terminal cancer. The film alternates between Plummer's remaining years and shortly after his death. Plummer comes out and begins an affair with a much younger Goran Visnjic, though he still manages to keep secrets. McGregor in cleaning up his father's affairs meets foreign actress Mélanie Laurent who might be his first serious relationship. As the title suggests, this film is about people starting over. I left thinking I just shared some intimate moments with these characters but still don't know who they are. I'm sure that was deliberate and a commentary on relationships. It's not a great film but it manages to get the comedy/drama balance right. It's a fine summer anti-blockbuster.
Crazy, Stupid, Love. - The critics' reviews I first heard were mixed. Most said the main story between Steve Carell and Julianne Moore was unfocused and the secondary story between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone was really good. Then a number of friends told me they saw this and really liked it. I mostly side with the critics. Gosling and Stone were very good (I've liked virtually all of their films). They felt like real people and shared some intimate moments and were very funny. Oddly it was Steve Carell that I thought was completely wrong in this film. The film opens with Moore saying she wants a divorce. Carell completely shuts down, not communicating at all. Instead he throws himself out of a moving car, moves out and hangs out in the local pickup bar acting like a pathetic loser. That's fine for a movie but I never bought the character. It's the same awkward out-of-place character he always plays (e.g., 40 Year-Old Virgin, Dinner With Schmucks, Evan Almighty) but without the charm (even worse than in Date Night). I don't see what Moore ever saw in him. This film is more drama than comedy and in that situation his awkward schtick really didn't fit for me. It was fine in Get Smart but not here.
The Trip - played at IFFBoston this year and while the reviews were good, it conflicted with other things and I skipped it. I'm glad I did. Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play what I assume are fictionalized versions of themselves on a week long tour of Britain's finest (country) restaurants. So it's a road film and mostly about the two of them talking. That's fine, but I didn't find them funny. Rob does imitations and Steve thinks his are better. That's about all I know about Rob. Also Steve is a womanizer. We don't see him actually doing anything that would effectively seduce someone, but we see him meet them and see them leave in the morning. And Steve complains about things. There were a few scenes I smiled through (the first tasting dinner) but I only laughed out loud twice. If you've seen a comedy (or even a drama) with me, you know that's not good. I know others that really liked it, but I found it was all smug setup without punchlines.
The Help - I haven't read the book but understand the movie is a faithful adaptation. It must be a good book because I enjoyed the film a lot. It's long, 146 minutes, but it went by quickly. This is the story of African American maids in Mississippi in the 60s. Even though they are raising the children of the households they're working in, they are treated like second class citizens. They cook the food but can't use the same bathroom or even door. Emma Stone is Skeeter a young forward thinking journalist that decides to tell their story in a new book. The performances are all good, particularly Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer but also Bryce Dallas Howard and Jessica Chastain. I've read a number of complaints from the African American community about the film (and book). The first is that it sugar coats the racism, things were much worse in real life. I agree a bit and thought it wrapped things up too neatly in the end, but it's still pretty effective in making it clear this was completely unfair to the maids and the white women were completely in the wrong. The other complaint is that the author was white woman and the community doesn't need her to tell their story. I'm less sympathetic to this. She grew up in this world and if someone else wants to tell the story, let them. Similarly there are complaints that the story involves a white woman, Skeeter, rescuing the black women, which is a stereotypical cliche. Again, I say get over it, it's fiction. And it's good fiction. In fact, I think it's the best drama of the year so far.
Jaws - I've seen Jaws several times, but this summer I saw it in a theater on a big screen I think for the first time. It's great. The story is great, the (lack of the) shark is scary, the characters are fully realized, the performances are great (particularly Robert Shaw), and the music fun. It's the best film I saw this summer and probably the second best film I saw this year (I watched Inception again in April).
The Tourist - This got horrible reviews last year and I waited until it was on cable. Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie vehicle set in Venice (and like The Town it had some great helicopter shots). I had thought it was a spy film but it's more like a crime thriller-romance with a Hitchcockian mistaken identity. Maybe it was trying to be To Catch a Thief but it failed. While there were some good lines, there was too little dialog. I just didn't buy the romance between the two of them. I also saw the ending coming from a mile away.
How to Steal a Million - is an Audrey Hepburn film I hadn't heard of. Her father, Hugh Griffith is an art forger. He puts a copy of a statue in a museum and Hepburn and Peter O'Toole must steal it back before it's found out. It's just a fun little caper. This might have been the film The Tourist was trying to be. Rent this instead.
George Washington Slept Here - is a Jack Benny comedy similar to Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House, though made 6 years prior and based on a play. Benny's wife, Ann Sheridan gets them evicted from their New York apartment because of her dog. She buys a country home where Washington is said to have slept. The problem is it's completely dilapidated and she did it without city boy Benny's knowledge. Bandings is better, but this was fun.
Departures - The 2009 Best Foreign Language Film Oscar winner from Japan. A somewhat unsuccessful violinist returns home and takes a job as a mortician. This is apparently not a respected position in Japan and his wife has issues with it. Nice small town drama as people realize what's important and what's not.
Good Neighbors - is a pretty fun dark comedic crime thriller. It follows three neighbors in an apartment building in a Montreal neighborhood. Louise is the single waitress on her way to becoming a crazy cat lady. Spencer is her friend recently confined to a wheelchair who doesn't leave his apartment. Victor is the new neighbor who talks too much and is annoying friendly. And there's a serial killer in the area. It's got that indie comedy vibe and maybe it tries to hard, but it worked for me.
Skidoo - I have a TiVo wishlist setup for Otto Preminger films. This one popped up from 1968, starring Jackie Gleason and Groucho Marx! Also in the cast were Frank Gorshin, Burgess Meredith, and Cesar Romero. A Batman reunion! Add in Frankie Avalon, Mickey Rooney and Carol Channing and how could I not watch it? Well it's not very good. IMDb says "Ex-gangster Tony Banks is called out of retirement by mob kingpin God to carry out a hit on fellow mobster "Blue Chips" Packard". But that doesn't do it justice. Instead, this is a 60s hippie farce and everyone mentioned above trips on LSD. But, this film has the best credits of all time, sung by Nilsson:
Virginia quake seismic waves march across the US
Seismometers from the EarthScope project Transportable Array measured the up-and-down motion of the ground from the magnitude 5.9 earthquake that occurred in Virginia on August 23, 2011. You can see the waves move across the country! Red is upward motion; blue down. The height of the wave was only 22 microns!
The Secret History of Guns
The Atlantic wrote about The Secret History of Guns. Surprisingly a lot of it is about the Black Panthers. But this was my favorite part:
"Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls."
"Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls."
Monday, August 22, 2011
How "What What (In the Butt)" unintentionally bolstered "fair use"
Ars Technica wrote an interesting article, How "What What (In the Butt)" unintentionally bolstered "fair use". "Wisconsin, state of my birth, I salute you for turning out federal judges like J.P. Stadtmueller. Stadtmueller is the man who waded into the swampland of fair use, South Park, and "What What (In the Butt)" to deliver a July 6 order that may break new judicial territory by citing South Park episode "Osama bin Laden Has Farty Pants" in its footnotes. And Stadtmueller has the proper feel for the absurd needed in any judge about to rule on a case involving the phrase, "You want to do it in my butt, in my butt?""
It's a nice summary of the case and issues. At the end it quotes Professor Kevin Smith's An easy fair use ruling, but with a message.
"What is significant here is that the judge made the fair use decision before there had been a trial. He examined the pleadings and found that everything he needed to make this easy call was already before him. Then he ruled favorably on a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of those pleadings (technically a “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim”) and dismissed the case with prejudice (which means plaintiff cannot re-file it).
Librarians and other academics are often afraid to rely on fair use, even when there arguments would be strong, because of the expense of defending a lawsuit even when you win. Content companies often encourage that fear, reminding academics that fair use is a defense that can only be decided with certainty at a trial. While this case is a little bit unusual, it invites us, I think, to look at this “chilling effect” and perhaps lend it less credence."
It's a nice summary of the case and issues. At the end it quotes Professor Kevin Smith's An easy fair use ruling, but with a message.
"What is significant here is that the judge made the fair use decision before there had been a trial. He examined the pleadings and found that everything he needed to make this easy call was already before him. Then he ruled favorably on a motion to dismiss the case on the basis of those pleadings (technically a “motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim”) and dismissed the case with prejudice (which means plaintiff cannot re-file it).
Librarians and other academics are often afraid to rely on fair use, even when there arguments would be strong, because of the expense of defending a lawsuit even when you win. Content companies often encourage that fear, reminding academics that fair use is a defense that can only be decided with certainty at a trial. While this case is a little bit unusual, it invites us, I think, to look at this “chilling effect” and perhaps lend it less credence."
Friday, August 19, 2011
Basic Macro
Dean Baker debunks some more supply side theories Casey Mulligan Unloads the Kitchen Sink. "Most of it has to do with the fact that even in the downturn employers will hire better qualified workers over less qualified workers and lower paid workers over higher paid workers. He infers from this fact that if all workers were better qualified and/or lower paid that we would not have an unemployment problem."
"Keynes' point is that changes that could increase any individual's chance of employment (e.g. improved education or accepting lower wages) would not necessarily lead to lower unemployment in general. In other words, if all workers could instantly get a college education then the main result would be that we would have more unemployed college grads.
This story would seem to be supported by two basic facts about the downturn. First, huge numbers of people who had the skills and desire to work before the collapse of the housing bubble, now do not have jobs. It seems difficult to explain the sudden loss of millions of jobs as a supply side phenomenon. The other basic fact is that unemployment has risen across the board in every major skills grouping and geographical location. This is very hard to explain as a supply side story."
Krugman calls it Lake Wobegon Economics. "The point, of course, is that all such arguments amount to committing the fallacy of composition...The essence of macroeconomics is understanding why such things are a fallacy, why what happens if one group does something is not at all what happens when everyone does it. And it’s a sad commentary on the state of economics when tenured professors at famous schools don’t get that distinction."
"Keynes' point is that changes that could increase any individual's chance of employment (e.g. improved education or accepting lower wages) would not necessarily lead to lower unemployment in general. In other words, if all workers could instantly get a college education then the main result would be that we would have more unemployed college grads.
This story would seem to be supported by two basic facts about the downturn. First, huge numbers of people who had the skills and desire to work before the collapse of the housing bubble, now do not have jobs. It seems difficult to explain the sudden loss of millions of jobs as a supply side phenomenon. The other basic fact is that unemployment has risen across the board in every major skills grouping and geographical location. This is very hard to explain as a supply side story."
Krugman calls it Lake Wobegon Economics. "The point, of course, is that all such arguments amount to committing the fallacy of composition...The essence of macroeconomics is understanding why such things are a fallacy, why what happens if one group does something is not at all what happens when everyone does it. And it’s a sad commentary on the state of economics when tenured professors at famous schools don’t get that distinction."
How Big Is the Deficit, Anyway?
James Kwak answers How Big Is the Deficit, Anyway?. "The first question is this: How big is the deficit anyway? The answer is pretty complicated—complicated enough for S&P to mess up (although in my opinion they made a rookie mistake, as I’ll explain later). Warning: lots of numbers ahead, though the only math is addition and subtraction."
Hint, it's the Bush tax cuts that are the problem.
Hint, it's the Bush tax cuts that are the problem.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
TV Review: Breaking Bad Season 4 Episode 5: Shotgun
Salon has a review of the latest episode of AMC's "Breaking Bad" 4x5, "Shotgun". It culminates with: "Breaking Bad might need to come to grips with the fact that it's not the same show now that it was when it began. It has a different energy and different obsessions. This might call for a more compressed narrative composed mostly of very short scenes, with the occasional spaghetti-strand action sequence being saved for special occasions, plus a willingness to get the cleanups out of the way quickly, the better to indulge in the surprising and forward-looking action that made the show a phenomenon in the first place."
I don't agree. Yes the storytelling has changed a bit and this season is a bit slower, but I think that's fine. I think it helps to define this series as something different and it is still exploring the characters in interesting ways. The opening of the review is spot on, "Tonight's "Breaking Bad," titled "Shotgun," ended with a scene that did what TV drama does best: define characters so completely that you feel as if you know them as well as you know yourself." But what it fails to mention is how the episode (in fact the whole season) contrasted Walt with Gus.
Walt has always been the smart one in the series, most obviously paired against Jesse. But he's also been out of his depth working in the underworld. We've seen him face one complication after another, like how to get supplies, where to cook, how to get product out safely, and how to deal with competitors who were willing to kill. In all of these Walt figured something out, usually by being smarter than others, though usually not before first ending up in a life threatening and desperate situation.
*Spoilers*
Now we see him working for Gus and Gus is as smart or smarter than Walt. He's been in the business longer and is very good at what he does, and he doesn't get rattled, and Walt always has. This episode was filled with Walt taking chances. It opened with a crazy car race to a chicken shack to... sit and wait. That ride miraculously drew no police. Wouldn't one of the cars he almost hit call the police on a cell phone?
Meanwhile Gus was engaged in a long con to make Jesse less of a risk to his operation. Sure someone like Tucco would have just killed or threatened Jesse, but Gus scares him a little and then makes him feel like a hero to give him something to live for. This is why Gus is in the position he's in.
Walt can't keep his ego in check at dinner even though it means the feds will be searching for him again. Gus obviously spent a while figuring out how to deal with the Jesse situation, and here's Walt putting his operation in jeopardy in a whole new way for no good reason. At some point Gus will realize that Walt isn't worth it. He's the definition of problem employee.
I suspect the cameras are in the lab so some other cooker can learn all the details of the recipe so that Gus can replace Walt. Hank will start investigating the chicken shack but I'm sure Gus has made it the perfect front and will be able to control that. I'm guessing that future episodes will contrast how good a front Gus has vs how badly Walt and Skyler setup the car wash as a front.
When the season began the creators said in interviews that they were exploring how bad they could make Walk while still having the audience root for him. I think now I'm rooting for him to get caught. Oddly I'm also rooting against Hank and for Gus. That's all completely upside down and I'm enjoying that.
I don't agree. Yes the storytelling has changed a bit and this season is a bit slower, but I think that's fine. I think it helps to define this series as something different and it is still exploring the characters in interesting ways. The opening of the review is spot on, "Tonight's "Breaking Bad," titled "Shotgun," ended with a scene that did what TV drama does best: define characters so completely that you feel as if you know them as well as you know yourself." But what it fails to mention is how the episode (in fact the whole season) contrasted Walt with Gus.
Walt has always been the smart one in the series, most obviously paired against Jesse. But he's also been out of his depth working in the underworld. We've seen him face one complication after another, like how to get supplies, where to cook, how to get product out safely, and how to deal with competitors who were willing to kill. In all of these Walt figured something out, usually by being smarter than others, though usually not before first ending up in a life threatening and desperate situation.
*Spoilers*
Now we see him working for Gus and Gus is as smart or smarter than Walt. He's been in the business longer and is very good at what he does, and he doesn't get rattled, and Walt always has. This episode was filled with Walt taking chances. It opened with a crazy car race to a chicken shack to... sit and wait. That ride miraculously drew no police. Wouldn't one of the cars he almost hit call the police on a cell phone?
Meanwhile Gus was engaged in a long con to make Jesse less of a risk to his operation. Sure someone like Tucco would have just killed or threatened Jesse, but Gus scares him a little and then makes him feel like a hero to give him something to live for. This is why Gus is in the position he's in.
Walt can't keep his ego in check at dinner even though it means the feds will be searching for him again. Gus obviously spent a while figuring out how to deal with the Jesse situation, and here's Walt putting his operation in jeopardy in a whole new way for no good reason. At some point Gus will realize that Walt isn't worth it. He's the definition of problem employee.
I suspect the cameras are in the lab so some other cooker can learn all the details of the recipe so that Gus can replace Walt. Hank will start investigating the chicken shack but I'm sure Gus has made it the perfect front and will be able to control that. I'm guessing that future episodes will contrast how good a front Gus has vs how badly Walt and Skyler setup the car wash as a front.
When the season began the creators said in interviews that they were exploring how bad they could make Walk while still having the audience root for him. I think now I'm rooting for him to get caught. Oddly I'm also rooting against Hank and for Gus. That's all completely upside down and I'm enjoying that.
Pay Off Your Credit Card Debt
I really liked this graphic, Pay off your credit card debt "A simple example showing what happens when you only pay the minimum monthly payment on your credit card debt."
Astronaut Photographs Perseid Meteor... From Space
Discovery wrote Astronaut Photographs Perseid Meteor... From Space "So, in a stunning photograph taken by NASA astronaut Ron Garan through a space station window, a single Perseid meteor was captured as the piece of comet dust slammed into the Earth's atmosphere."
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By now you've probably seen this in other places but Warren Buffet's article in the Sunday New York Times, Stop Coddling the Super-Rich was quite good. You can pick just about any paragraph to quote, here's the one I'll take:
"Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent."
On Sunday the Times also published A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself. A long article on Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his financial and lawmaking conflicts of interest.
"Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent."
On Sunday the Times also published A Businessman in Congress Helps His District and Himself. A long article on Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA) and his financial and lawmaking conflicts of interest.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
MA Choose Life Plates?
Huh, it turns out Massachusetts has a Choose Life License Plate. I saw it tonight for the first time. It seems at least 2,224 have been sold. Apparently there isn't a Pro-Choice one.
White House Debates Fight On Economy
Yesterday the New York Times published White House Debates Fight On Economy.
"Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them."
Here's the problem: "So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches."
If no one is speaking up the progressive pro-stimulus side of the debate, which I (and "a wide range of economists") think is the only one that will get the economy moving, then it's just moving deck chairs. Small tangible results won't do anything (and haven't for the last 2.5 years). It's how you end up having to tout yourself with "it would have been worse if we weren't here".
"But Christina Romer, who stepped down last year as the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Mr. Obama should fight for short-term spending in combination with long-term deficit reduction. “Playing it safe is not going to cut it,” said Ms. Romer, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “Not proposing anything bold and not trying to do something to definitively deal with our problems would mean that we’re going to have another year and a half like the last year and a half — and then it’s awfully hard to get re-elected.”"
Not surprisingly the article got a lot of comments from the usual crowd, most with titles that read like The Onion.
CalculatedRisk wrote, White House Debates Doing Little or Nothing. "Tax incentives are the "bigger idea"? It sounds like the debate is between doing nothing and doing very little. If I arrived on the scene today - with a 9.1% unemployment rate and about 4.6 million homes with seriously delinquent mortgages or REO - I'd be arguing for an aggressive policy response. "
Paul Krugman wrote Little or Nothing. "And as for the political side, I guess I’m puzzled: you have an obstructionist GOP, and rather than point out that obstruction, you restrict yourself to calling for measures that this obstructionist opposition might actually accept. Doesn’t this mean that voters learn nothing about the extent to which the GOP is in fact blocking job creation?"
Mark Thoma wrote White House Debates Giving Up on Helping the Economy. "The administration hasn't figured out that it's supposed to lead -- that sometimes it's supposed to move public opinion instead of following it."
"The best thing the administration can do is abandon support for struggling households now so Obama can get reelected and reduce social insurance programs that help struggling households? The administration should put its effort into job creation and talk of little else (though mortgage relief is also high on the list). If Republicans go along, great, households need jobs. If not, it's up to the administration to make sure it's their loss."
Jared Bernstein says Herein Lies the Problem in the print edition of the article it said “It would be political folly to make the argument that government spending equals jobs.” "Far be it from me—I mean this—to advise the politicals as to what works. But I simply don’t believe it is “political folly” to tell the truth on this critically important point."
Mark Thoma followed up, "I don't expect that the administration would be successful if they do pursue job creation vigorously. Any job creation program that is likely to work and large enough to matter would almost surely be blocked by the other side. But I agree with those who argue there's value in the fight because it makes it absolutely clear whose side you are on, and that fighting to help the unemployed will do more for reelection chances than the milquetoast centrism that has characterized the administration recently. They are worried they will lose more votes than they gain if they fight for job creation, that they will be pegged as tax and spend liberals instead of defenders of the working class. But they seem oblivious to the dangers of being viewed as caring more about the interests of wealthy supporters driving the deficit reduction bandwagon than households who need their help."
bobswern (who I've never heard of) on DailyKos wrote Sunday’s NYT Lead: “White House Debates Fight on Economy”…Not.. "Is the actual strategy of our Party in 2012 going to be one where hope is held out that the Republicans will just scare the crap out of the public so much, voters will feel so compelled to stop them that they’ll rush to the polls to re-elect the President? You know, I never thought I’d say this—given that I’ve always found that a candidate running for re-election or election had to concisely provide reasons to the voter as to why they should cast their vote for them--but that strategy just might work…at least it would in a world where one is not tacitly demoralizing part of their base while attempting to underwhelm voters, in general; and, where their opposition is not spending a billion dollars to kick their ass."
Blue Texan (who I have read before) wrote on firedoglake White House Trying to Win Independents with Economic Policies That Do Nothing. "Memo to Jay Carney: putting forth half-assed, small beer proposals that you know will accomplish little because you think, cynically, that’s what “independents” want is a stunt. It’s the definition of a stunt. It’s also craven and cowardly when we’ve still got over 9% of the country unemployed. Also, “leadership” doesn’t mean trying to guess in advance what the Teabillies in the House will agree to, which by the way — is nothing. These people are absolutely pathetic."
Jame Hamsher wrote on firedoglake, It's Okay to be Scared Now. "So the two jobs plans under consideration are put on a show and score a “win” by paying off the Chamber, arming North Korea and offshoring 159,000 jobs with another NAFTA deal, or put on a show and pretend to care about passing legislation that will never happen. You know at some point people might get wise to the fact that Obama is the most powerful political figure in the world, and he does have options beyond being a corporate tool who lets his campaign manager rearrange the national lawn furniture."
"The White House does not seem to be able to conceive of actual governance as a viable option, and appear to be counting on the fact that Republicans are so crazy that if they don’t piss off elites they can cruise to victory in 2012 by flim-flamming the public with a series of PR stunts, even in the midst of soaring unemployment. After watching the Iowa Republican debate devolve into an argument over whether aborting innocent fetuses conceived in rape means victimizing them twice, I’m afraid they might well be right."
"Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Plouffe, and his chief of staff, William M. Daley, want him to maintain a pragmatic strategy of appealing to independent voters by advocating ideas that can pass Congress, even if they may not have much economic impact. These include free trade agreements and improved patent protections for inventors.
But others, including Gene Sperling, Mr. Obama’s chief economic adviser, say public anger over the debt ceiling debate has weakened Republicans and created an opening for bigger ideas like tax incentives for businesses that hire more workers, according to Congressional Democrats who share that view. Democrats are also pushing the White House to help homeowners facing foreclosure. Even if the ideas cannot pass Congress, they say, the president would gain a campaign issue by pushing for them."
Here's the problem: "So far, most signs point to a continuation of the nonconfrontational approach — better to do something than nothing — that has defined this administration. Mr. Obama and his aides are skeptical that voters will reward bold proposals if those ideas do not pass Congress. It is their judgment that moderate voters want tangible results rather than speeches."
If no one is speaking up the progressive pro-stimulus side of the debate, which I (and "a wide range of economists") think is the only one that will get the economy moving, then it's just moving deck chairs. Small tangible results won't do anything (and haven't for the last 2.5 years). It's how you end up having to tout yourself with "it would have been worse if we weren't here".
"But Christina Romer, who stepped down last year as the chairwoman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, said Mr. Obama should fight for short-term spending in combination with long-term deficit reduction. “Playing it safe is not going to cut it,” said Ms. Romer, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “Not proposing anything bold and not trying to do something to definitively deal with our problems would mean that we’re going to have another year and a half like the last year and a half — and then it’s awfully hard to get re-elected.”"
Not surprisingly the article got a lot of comments from the usual crowd, most with titles that read like The Onion.
CalculatedRisk wrote, White House Debates Doing Little or Nothing. "Tax incentives are the "bigger idea"? It sounds like the debate is between doing nothing and doing very little. If I arrived on the scene today - with a 9.1% unemployment rate and about 4.6 million homes with seriously delinquent mortgages or REO - I'd be arguing for an aggressive policy response. "
Paul Krugman wrote Little or Nothing. "And as for the political side, I guess I’m puzzled: you have an obstructionist GOP, and rather than point out that obstruction, you restrict yourself to calling for measures that this obstructionist opposition might actually accept. Doesn’t this mean that voters learn nothing about the extent to which the GOP is in fact blocking job creation?"
Mark Thoma wrote White House Debates Giving Up on Helping the Economy. "The administration hasn't figured out that it's supposed to lead -- that sometimes it's supposed to move public opinion instead of following it."
"The best thing the administration can do is abandon support for struggling households now so Obama can get reelected and reduce social insurance programs that help struggling households? The administration should put its effort into job creation and talk of little else (though mortgage relief is also high on the list). If Republicans go along, great, households need jobs. If not, it's up to the administration to make sure it's their loss."
Jared Bernstein says Herein Lies the Problem in the print edition of the article it said “It would be political folly to make the argument that government spending equals jobs.” "Far be it from me—I mean this—to advise the politicals as to what works. But I simply don’t believe it is “political folly” to tell the truth on this critically important point."
Mark Thoma followed up, "I don't expect that the administration would be successful if they do pursue job creation vigorously. Any job creation program that is likely to work and large enough to matter would almost surely be blocked by the other side. But I agree with those who argue there's value in the fight because it makes it absolutely clear whose side you are on, and that fighting to help the unemployed will do more for reelection chances than the milquetoast centrism that has characterized the administration recently. They are worried they will lose more votes than they gain if they fight for job creation, that they will be pegged as tax and spend liberals instead of defenders of the working class. But they seem oblivious to the dangers of being viewed as caring more about the interests of wealthy supporters driving the deficit reduction bandwagon than households who need their help."
bobswern (who I've never heard of) on DailyKos wrote Sunday’s NYT Lead: “White House Debates Fight on Economy”…Not.. "Is the actual strategy of our Party in 2012 going to be one where hope is held out that the Republicans will just scare the crap out of the public so much, voters will feel so compelled to stop them that they’ll rush to the polls to re-elect the President? You know, I never thought I’d say this—given that I’ve always found that a candidate running for re-election or election had to concisely provide reasons to the voter as to why they should cast their vote for them--but that strategy just might work…at least it would in a world where one is not tacitly demoralizing part of their base while attempting to underwhelm voters, in general; and, where their opposition is not spending a billion dollars to kick their ass."
Blue Texan (who I have read before) wrote on firedoglake White House Trying to Win Independents with Economic Policies That Do Nothing. "Memo to Jay Carney: putting forth half-assed, small beer proposals that you know will accomplish little because you think, cynically, that’s what “independents” want is a stunt. It’s the definition of a stunt. It’s also craven and cowardly when we’ve still got over 9% of the country unemployed. Also, “leadership” doesn’t mean trying to guess in advance what the Teabillies in the House will agree to, which by the way — is nothing. These people are absolutely pathetic."
Jame Hamsher wrote on firedoglake, It's Okay to be Scared Now. "So the two jobs plans under consideration are put on a show and score a “win” by paying off the Chamber, arming North Korea and offshoring 159,000 jobs with another NAFTA deal, or put on a show and pretend to care about passing legislation that will never happen. You know at some point people might get wise to the fact that Obama is the most powerful political figure in the world, and he does have options beyond being a corporate tool who lets his campaign manager rearrange the national lawn furniture."
"The White House does not seem to be able to conceive of actual governance as a viable option, and appear to be counting on the fact that Republicans are so crazy that if they don’t piss off elites they can cruise to victory in 2012 by flim-flamming the public with a series of PR stunts, even in the midst of soaring unemployment. After watching the Iowa Republican debate devolve into an argument over whether aborting innocent fetuses conceived in rape means victimizing them twice, I’m afraid they might well be right."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)